[split] Psychology of the Roman soldier

[Bryan]

here you have:


On the following day they went forward under better protection; and the Parthians met with a great surprise when they attacked them. For they thought they were riding up for plunder and booty, not battle, and when they encountered many missiles and saw that the Romans were fresh and vigorous and eager for the fray, they were once more tired of the struggle. 2 However, as the Romans were descending some steep hills, the Parthians attacked them and shot at them as they slowly moved along. Then the shield-bearers wheeled about, enclosing the lighter armed troops within their ranks, while they themselves dropped on one knee and held their shields out before them. The second rank held their shields out over the heads of the first, and the next rank likewise. The resulting appearance is very like that of a roof,41 affords a striking spectacle, and is the most effective of protections against arrows, which glide off from it. 3 The Parthians, however, thinking that the Romans dropping on one knee was a sign of fatigue and exhaustion, laid aside their bows, grasped their spears by the middle and came to close quarters. But the Romans, with a full battle cry, suddenly sprang up, and thrusting with their javelins slew the foremost of the Parthians and put all the rest to rout. This happened also on the following days as the Romans, little by little, proceeded on their way.    Plutarch, Life of Anthony,  p241

Congratulations, you just described testudo being used against cavalry. And you still got it wrong because you ignored the key part of the action "But the Romans, with a full battle cry, suddenly sprang up, and thrusting with their javelins slew the foremost of the Parthians and put all the rest to rout."  Which means the Romans lifted their shields up and attacked, not in a shield wall. 

This is what you wrote:

"Just because some historians (who are most likely not former Roman soldiers) wrote that they fought as individuals, it doesnt automatically mean they fought individually and did not rely on formations and support of others.. "

You describe the scutum as a pavise (which is wasn't even close to in size or weight), so clearly you believe it was used as a mobile wall to fight from. And you implied that Polybius (the historian who wasn't a Roman soldier, but who watched them closely on campaign, and had an ear to their generals) was wrong in his description of Romans fighting individually in close combat. So besides forming a testudo or close ranks to defend against missile enemies or cavalry, I want you to show me, with primary sources, when in close combat with enemy infantry the Romans fought in a shield wall, with their shields resting on the ground like a pavise.

BTW, gladiators of the Samnite/Gaul style used identical scuta as Roman infantry. Did they too fight as a shield wall in the arena? LOL

[Hasdrubal]

yet shield wall  of men having shields post on the ground and covering behind them was used often, and its something mentioned a lot. (Wars against Jugurtha, Socii wars, Civil Wars etc etc...)

Prove that the Romans placed the bottom edge of their scutum on the ground, forming an actual wall, and then fought from behind it, and do it with PRIMARY sources.

A few weeks ago my wife and I just got back from Rome. I took a picture. I believe at times the Roman did fight with their shields on the ground. Like any well trained unit in order to defeat the opponent you need to work in unison with your fellow brother in arms. At that time the Roman soldier pretty much had combat figured out. Phalanx with joints. 



Nevermind. I agree with Bryans comments above. His assessment imo spot on.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Aaron, I think you may have misinterpreted the picture you took and have displayed in this thread. The warriors whose shields are lying on their sides on the ground are the barbarian foes of the Romans, look at the clothing and head gear they are wearing.

I don't think the argument that soldiers did not really want to fight does not stand up to the weight of evidence. I'm not saying that people have a death wish, we are all adverse to dying, but under the right circumstances the thought of death gets pushed back to the rear of the mind whilst you are concentrating on getting the job done.

[JaM]

You describe the scutum as a pavise (which is wasn't even close to in size or weight)


really?

check this then:

http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2711


and no, Plutarch was not describing testudo.. but something like this:

http://www.padfield.com/bible-times/roma...rmy-04.jpg


And regarding shields on the ground, do you really think Triarii knelt with shields in the air???  lol Facing a cavalry, its always better to have a solid line, without any space.. horse dont like to hit solid object.. if you make it run at it, it will look for a gap instead of running into it... so putting men closer together, presenting solid line of shields... thats pretty basic anticavalry defense... it quite surprise me you are questioning such a base thing....


You describe the scutum as a pavise (which is wasn't even close to in size or weight), so clearly you believe it was used as a mobile wall to fight from

so clearly you have not understand what i wrote and decided to build a  new trolling case from something that is not even related to topic of this thread...

[Bryan]

You describe the scutum as a pavise (which is wasn't even close to in size or weight)

really?

check this then:

http://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2711


And? Do you think because a kite or heater was strapped to the arm similar to an aspis they were also used the same way? You are drawing conclusions that have no historical evidence to match up. Pavise are not scuta, scuta were not pavise, no matter how much you want to see both and try to make them identical because you feel the need to find similarities. 


and no, Plutarch was not describing testudo.. but something like this:

http://www.padfield.com/bible-times/roma...rmy-04.jpg


LOL, that's still a testudo. The only reason is isn't fulled out is because there are 20 reenactors in two ranks, not the 60-100 in a century there normally would be. Or do you think Romans commonly formed their centuries in ranks of two? 


And regarding shields on the ground, do you really thing Triarii knelt with shields in the air???  lol

Triari knelt while waiting, they didn't fight that way! Or do you think they fought that way? 

Yours in Italics. 

Still waiting on you to tell me whether or not Samnite/Gaul/provocator/murmillo/secutor all fought laying their scuta on the ground and fighting around it as a wall.  

[JaM]

And? Do you think because a kite or heater was strapped to the arm similar to an aspis they were also used the same way? You are drawing conclusions that have no historical evidence to match up. Pavise are not scuta, scuta were not pavise, no matter how much you want to see both and try to make them identical because you feel the need to find similarities.


And where i said they were same??? I said, they were of similar shape and weight.... average Pavise was 125mm x70mm, same or similar like Republican Scutum...

LOL, that's still a testudo. The only reason is isn't fulled out is because there are 20 reenactors in two ranks, not the 60-100 in a century there normally would be. Or do you think Romans commonly formed their centuries in ranks of two?

Thats not Testudo. This was deployed in line,to face cavalry. Testudo was usually a column. 

ill repeat part you ignored completely:

Facing a cavalry, its always better to have a solid line, without any space.. horse dont like to hit solid object.. if you make it run at it, it will look for a gap instead of running into it... so putting men closer together, presenting solid line of shields... thats pretty basic anticavalry defense... it quite surprise me you are questioning such a base thing....

Did Romans know how to repel cavalry? Definitely.. Even Cataphracts didnt dare to charge Romans frontally... so your idea of them fighting individually, is pretty ridiculous. Romans defeated their enemies because of better training, better formations, better cohesion, and better initiative of their (low rank) commanders.. They were perfectly capable adopting the formation based on situation, they were not seeking combat individually, but cooperated within unit...
Did they knelt? why not? It is not that unusual for infantry to kneel when facing cavalry charge... In Napoleonic times, it was pretty much normal for men in the square to kneel and present their bayonets towards cavalry.. same even with Renaisance Pikemen, who knelt with their pikes supported against the ground..

[Robert Vermaat]

Thats not Testudo. This was deployed in line,to face cavalry. Testudo was usually a column. 

Actually the word 'testudo' may have been used for both the column as well as the linear 'shield wall' you describe.
Mauricios uses the word 'fulcum' for both a linear offensive formation as well as a defensive formation that is very much like a linear version of the classical testudo. Nothing sure of course, but that's something we see more often in Roman military terminology.

[Bryan]

And where i said they were same??? I said, they were of similar shape and weight.... average Pavise was 125mm x70mm, same or similar like Republican Scutum...

Do I have to spell it out for you? You go on about how they are nearly identical in size and shape and weight (which they were not, because your figures are wrong) and then you assume they were used the same way, even though 1,700 years separate them. 

Thats not Testudo. This was deployed in line,to face cavalry. Testudo was usually a column. 

Deployed in line? Like Napoleonic tactics? So now "Line" in the sense of Roman history means two ranks deep? Do you simply reinvent every bit of history you base video games on or is Rome just the exception? 

Testudo wasn't a line. Testudo wasn't a column. Testudo was a Roman century, in whatever frontage and depth it was already in, lifting their shields ups in a way that protected them from missile threats, similar to the shell of a tortoise.

Romans weren't 18-19th century Europeans. They didn't fight "In line" nor did they fight "In column". 

ill repeat part you ignored completely:

Facing a cavalry, its always better to have a solid line, without any space.. horse dont like to hit solid object.. if you make it run at it, it will look for a gap instead of running into it... so putting men closer together, presenting solid line of shields... thats pretty basic anticavalry defense... it quite surprise me you are questioning such a base thing....

Most cavalry of the period wasn't shock cavalry, they were missile bearing, usually javelins. Gauls, Macedonians, and Parthians were the only ones really who would deign to threaten the front of a Roman line. More likely they'd hit the flank of a Roman force, the formations you preach wouldn't protect the centuries under threat of a flanking attack at all. 

Did Romans know how to repel cavalry? Definitely.. Even Cataphracts didnt dare to charge Romans frontally... so your idea of them fighting individually, is pretty ridiculous.

Just to be clear, you just promoted in the very paragraph before this that Romans countered the front threat from charging horse by forming in a shield wall with no gaps. Now you are saying that they never would attack Romans frontally? You're wrong either way. I'll list one example: Magnesia, many historians believe that Seleucid heavy horse successfully charged through the Roman front line. 

Yours in italics. 

[JaM]

Am I being punked? you are twisting my words in every single sentence i write...

Where I wrote it has to be two ranks deep? Plutarch described three ranks, with first one kneeling... Obviously when facing cavalry you wont form a column, but want to keep your frontage, and prevent cavalry to pour in the gaps... especially if that cavalry might have some ranged weapons...  so let say with 6 ranks, 3 would form that lets call it SHIELD SCREEN, remaining would be ready to use their javelins when cavalry gets closer, or be ready to countercharge..



Line and Column are base military formations, universally used thorough the history. call it whatever you want. I'm just surprised somebody who claim to serve with military doesn't have base military knowledge about formations... Triplex Acies  is a formation of three lines (with gaps between maniples)... when Maniples marched into battle, they were marching in columns as it was easier to maneuver into positions..

oh, look Romans formed lines at Zama:



and at Trebia:



even at Cannae:






surprisingly for you, even Napoleonic infantry fought with battalions having GAPS from each other...






Just to be clear, you just promoted in the very paragraph before this that Romans countered the front threat from charging horse by forming in a shield wall with no gaps. Now you are saying that they never would attack Romans frontally? You're wrong either way. I'll list one example: Magnesia, many historians believe that Seleucid heavy horse successfully charged through the Roman front line.

NOT ALL cavalry was fighting like that... Celts, Iberians,Carthaginians and even Romans went for shock action and closed in...  and regarding Magnesia, you are wrong... Seleucid cataphracts charged small Roman cavalry detachment (3 turmae) and then attacked Italic legion on the flank (Roman Legions were in the middle, not on flanks).. you should spend a bit more time reading about Magnesia...


and nice picture, yet since when some modern day painting serves as proof of anything????  plus, you used a picture with shock cavalry on it....

---

anyway, this is how i imagine how Romans fought:

http://romanarmy.info/battleline/battleline.html

http://romanarmy.info/site_map.html

but i dont doubt you will tell me Garry Bruggemann is also a fraud that was incorrect in every single word he wrote...

[ValentinianVictrix]

Jaroslav

Ammianus gives an account where Sarmatian cavalry managed to successfully charge and break through and rout two Roman legions, that is one counter to your argument. Although of course Professor Philip Rance has demonstrated if the infantry remains steady then its almost impossible for any form of mounted troops to frontally attack and defeat the infantry.

[Bryan]

Where I wrote it has to be two ranks deep? Plutarch described three ranks, with first one kneeling... Obviously when facing cavalry you wont form a column, but want to keep your frontage, and prevent cavalry to pour in the gaps... especially if that cavalry might have some ranged weapons...  so let say with 6 ranks, 3 would form that lets call it SHIELD SCREEN, remaining would be ready to use their javelins when cavalry gets closer, or be ready to countercharge..

This the text from Plutarch:

"Then the shield-bearers wheeled about, enclosing the lighter armed troops within their ranks, while they themselves dropped on one knee and held their shields out before them.
The second rank held their shields out over the heads of the first, and the next rank likewise. The resulting appearance is very like that of a roof, affords a striking spectacle, and is the most effective of protections against arrows, which glide off from it. "

Plutarch says the second rank and those after held their scuta overhead, which were like roof tiles, which is THE LITERAL DEFINITION OF TESTUDO. Plutarch doesn't describe ranks 4 and after as hiding behind a shield screen, he describes them as HOLDING THEIR SHIELDS OVER THEIR HEADS BECAUSE THEY WERE IN TESTUDO FORMATIONS. When discussing Testudo, historians actually use this piece of text as evidence.

No, there is no Shield Screen, you don't get to invest things when there were already existing ones to describe it. Shield Wall. Phalanx. Fulcon.


Line and Column are base military formations, universally used thorough the history. call it whatever you want. I'm just surprised somebody who claim to serve with military doesn't have base military knowledge about formations... Triplex Acies  is a formation of three lines (with gaps between maniples)... when Maniples marched into battle, they were marching in columns as it was easier to maneuver into positions..

Don't go there, you really don't want to get personal and start questioning my military service. You truly don't want to do this, because if you think things are heated now, should you choose to call me a liar or a fool it will get a whole lot worse very quickly. 

You're using Line and Column (I'll keep them capitalized for a reason) in the same sense that people discussing Napoleonic era infantry tactics use the terms. Romans marched in column, they didn't advance in column like the French regiments of the Napoleonic War did. Romans fought in line, but it wasn't the thin Line you are theorizing, most times it was 5-10 deep, aside from a very few small situations when it was made smaller and only one line, usually against cavalry and threat of envelopment (like Cassius' recommendation at Carrhae). 


surprisingly for you, even Napoleonic infantry fought with battalions having GAPS from each other...

And if you had bothered actually reading older threads on this forum instead of making believe it started when you started posting regularly you would have seen that I'd already discussed this stuff all the way back in 2011. Use the search feature, you wont jump to incorrect conclusions then. 

Further, this post of yours is proof that you are merging Roman military tactics with Napoleonic era tactics in your quest to simplify everything, the same thing you're doing with the Republican era Scuta and 15th century Pavise. 


NOT ALL cavalry was fighting like that... Celts, Iberians,Carthaginians and even Romans went for shock action and closed in...  and regarding Magnesia, you are wrong... Seleucid cataphracts charged small Roman cavalry detachment (3 turmae) and then attacked Italic legion on the flank.. you should spend a bit more time reading about Magnesia...

"many historians believe that Seleucid heavy horse successfully charged through the Roman front line." 
"many historians"
"historians"

A whole slew of historians believe the Seleucid horse charged through the initial line. Even if you don't except that example, it also happened to Ventidius at Mount Gindarus (they didn't succeed but they charged uphill toward the Roman infantry), to Antony's baggage train during his Parthian Campaign. Lastly, we have the example you already quoted numerous times, when Antony's legions took up a kneeling testudo because of the missile threat from Parthian archers, the Parthian cataphract frontally charged them confusing the Romans kneeling with passivity, in which they were grossly wrong.


and nice picture, yet since when some modern day painting serves as proof of anything????

There are these people called historians, and they work with these people called artists, and together they create these things call prints. And their work is more credible than twcenter.com fanbois. 

Yours in italics.

---

but i dont doubt you will tell me Garry Bruggemann is also a fraud that was incorrect in every single word he wrote...

You're still upset that I called SLA Marshall a fraud? He was, no matter how much you want to use him to support you theories on warfare and killing, Marshall is a fraud and everyone who follows him and the subject now knows this. 

And Lindy is not a fraud but he's not a source either, he's an entertainer. 

We've discussed Bruggemann's website on this forum in the past, you've not read them (as you've not read anything else apparently). I agree with some of the things he proposed, I disagree with other things. At least he was original though and did his homework on the sources he used.

[JaM]

There are these people called historians, and they work with these people called artists, and together they create these things call prints. And their work is more credible than twcenter.com fanbois.

really, and who's to tell which pictures are made by those artists and historians and which are not? You?  

Don't go there, you really don't want to get personal and start questioning my military service. You truly don't want to do this, because if you think things are heated now, should you choose to call me a liar or a fool it will get a whole lot worse very quickly.

Yet you are doing exactly the same.... REPEATEDLY

Further, this post of yours is proof that you are merging Roman military tactics with Napoleonic era tactics in your quest to simplify everything, the same thing you're doing with the Republican era Scuta and 15th century Pavise.

So? are you questioning the simple fact that its easier to march forward with men in column than in line??? its a very base military knowledge... again..


Anyway, i decided to stop this nonsense. there is no point continue this "discussion" as its more like a rant and i feel guilty feeding the troll. because your style of "discussion" is a perfect definition of trolling.

[Bryan]

really, and who's to tell which pictures are made by those artists and historians and which are not? You?  

You could do your research and then you'd know which prints are worth paying attention to and which aren't. You typically wont find that in a Google search or on TWCenter.com. For instance the Magnesia print you ridiculed was commissioned and done by the highly skilled and accurate Igor Dzis, used in the issue I.2 of Ancient Warfare Magazine, in an article by Dr. Inaki Arrizabalaga called "The Battle of Magnesia, An Alternative Reconstruction." Did you know that? Probably not. Did you read the article? Probably not.

Funny that you included a print of a fulcon shield wall, what you incorrectly label a shield screen, not realizing that the highly detailed print didn't just magically appear in Google Images, it was commissioned by a writer for Ancient Warfare Magazine, issue VII.6. Did you know that? Probably not. Did you read the article? Probably not.

If you actually want more information about ancient warfare prints you can read Ancient Warfare Magazine's special edition The Art of Ancient Warfare, which explains how the commissioning of prints occurs, the cross talk between historians and artists, that goes into creating accurate and beautiful art. Also the magazine hosts this forum, so you'd be doing RAT a favor by reading back issues, plus improving your knowledge. I own every issue printed, its worth the money. 


So? are you questioning the simple fact that its easier to march forward with men in column than in line??? its a very base military knowledge... again..

The Romans didn't advance in column, so its a moot point. And its even easier to advance units in single file than in column, much more easier to control, but the Romans didn't do that either. And its easier to fight with a musket than with a sword, nor did they use cannon which were more effective than any siege weapons Romans might have used in battle, but the Romans didn't use them either. Because things changed over the course of 2,000 years. 


Anyway, i decided to stop this nonsense. there is no point continue this "discussion" as its more like a rant and i feel guilty feeding the troll. because your style of "discussion" is a perfect definition of trolling.

You can stop replying and ignore me, but I'll keep commenting on your posts when you write something wrong. 

Yours in Italics.

[Hasdrubal]

Aaron, I think you may have misinterpreted the picture you took and have displayed in this thread. The warriors whose shields are lying on their sides on the ground are the barbarian foes of the Romans, look at the clothing and head gear they are wearing.

I don't think the argument that soldiers did not really want to fight does not stand up to the weight of evidence. I'm not saying that people have a death wish, we are all adverse to dying, but under the right circumstances the thought of death gets pushed back to the rear of the mind whilst you are concentrating on getting the job done.

I was referring to the testudo in the picture.

[Bryan]

A while ago I built a Republican styled curved oval scutum, two birch 1/8" sheets glued together, measuring 30" wide (before curving it over a 55 gallon drum) x 48" tall. I didn't use a proper umbo, felt/skin covering, and used rug padding for top and bottom protection so I could smash it against my pell in the backyard. Its not very heavy at all but it balances well enough to understand how the dynamics with the shield works, its very maneuverable and there are many different ways of holding it in a close in fight besides the heavily braced crouching method commonly depicted by reenactors.

I'm actually about to build another test scutum to mimic the height of the scuta in the Pydna monument and the Altar of Ahenobarbus Domitius. Both are significantly taller in scale, the Pydna scutum would come up to the shoulder while resting on the ground while the Ahenobarbus scutum reaches the armpit. 

I think these are the most excessive sizes of Republican scuta but we know they varied in size. The Fayum scutum is large than Polybius' scutum, and numerous sources describe Scipio Aemilianus chewing out a soldier for having an oversized shield, relying too much on defense than offense. Peter Connolly believed that the Roman fighting style was to place the shield bottom on the ground and fight from around it, but based on my experiences playing on the pell with my rudis and faux-scutum it isn't really possible with a ~48" tall scutum, the soldier's upper body would be VERY exposed to overhead stabs and wrap cuts due to how far they would need to crouch down. Maybe with the taller 55-58" shields I'm going to make it is possible, but its just as likely the scutarii simply held the shield normally, its greater height meant they wouldn't need to bend the elbow at all to raise the shield up to protect their shoulder and face like with a "normal" 40"-48" sized scutum, they could simply hold it in front of them, their arm relaxed besides the hands holding the grip, and it seems it would give ample protection to the lower legs and head/shoulder against missiles and close range weapons.